So you changed it to "civil marriage"? That still isn't in there. You do realize that the word marriage never once shows up in the constitution or it's amendments right?

I'm not sure I understand the point you are making. The Constitution was missing many civil liberties we now take for granted and wouldn't consider changing, but we all added after the fact. I see it as inevitable that homosexual marriage will be ratified as an Amendment. Perhaps within a decade. It was only 2 score and 1 year ago that interracial marriages were deemed legal by the Supreme Court.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

How lovely for you. Either way, God is right. How can you fail? Tell you what, as no-one knows about god - whether she is a man or a woman, is gay or lesbian, black or white, or if god even exists - lets toss a coin. Lets do it your way to make it more Christian. You say yes, God is real and exists - I say no, God is not real and does not exist. lets flip the coin - Heads I win, tails you loose....

You just know he is sitting back in his autumn line of Ralph Laurens and laughing at all the crap and deeds claimed in his name.

Even though it is called FAITH for a reason, they KNOW these things to be TRUE with absolute certainty.

I'm not sure I understand the point you are making. The Constitution was missing many civil liberties we now take for granted and wouldn't consider changing, but we all added after the fact. I see it as inevitable that homosexual marriage will be ratified as an Amendment. Perhaps within a decade. It was only 2 score and 1 year ago that interracial marriages were deemed legal by the Supreme Court.

Considering within the past decade over 26 states (at last check) have passed state amendments banning them I doubt it's going to happen anytime soon. It is possible there might be a civil-union amendment but I doubt if in my lifetime (I'm only 26 so hopefully I've got a ways to go) there will be anything about marriage. Even with a 100% liberal congress you still have to get 2/3 of the states to ratify - that's much more difficult than 2/3 of Congress...

I realize the point of inter-racial marriages but that was never (as much as people would have you believe) as sharp an issue as same-sex marriage has become. Also, it's biblical relevance is sketchy as best as opposed to the clear cut nature of the issue of same-sex (sexually active) couples.

EDIT: Comparing the Supreme Courts decision to that of passing an amendment is pretty loose. They'll pass an abortion amendment long before they pass a same-sex marriage amendment and judging by the latest public opinion polls the overwhelming majority of Americans don't support 1) same-sex marriage or 2) situation independent abortions (i.e. abortions whenever anyone wants them no matter what).

Tell you what, as no-one knows about god - whether she is a man or a woman, is gay or lesbian, black or white, or if god even exists - lets toss a coin. Lets do it your way to make it more Christian. You say yes, God is real and exists - I say no, God is not real and does not exist. lets flip the coin - Heads I win, tails you loose....

Let's say that God doesn't exist. We are merely the product of Time + Matter + Chance.

If that's the case, then all love, beauty, awe and wonder, deep thoughts, righteousness and indignation -- in short, all things that make us truly human -- are nothing more than electro-chemical responses in our bodies that we perceive as love, beauty, awe, etc. Any feelings of love from your spouse are just brain waves and chemicals and juices -- no more no less.

[And if that's the case, this whole discussion on this Apple forum is ridiculous -- a bunch of ape-creatures getting all uptight over electro-chemical impulses...]

But we know that to not be the case, deep down in our hearts.

If we really were atheistically evolved beings, we would just be purely pragmatic -- eat when we're hungry, find shelter when we're cold, etc. Just like the animals. We wouldn't be capable of recognizing beauty and feeling love.

The spirit within you testifies that you are more than just 'natural'.

So you changed it to "civil marriage"? That still isn't in there. You do realize that the word marriage never once shows up in the constitution or it's amendments right? And when the supreme law governing the land not once references the claim you are trying to make it is no longer an issue of "rights" - it's an issue to be determined by the voters (i.e. Democracy).

Please tell me the correct wording then.
Should I use the right to ask for a "marriage license"?

Two spouses get certain rights when they get married.
That is what is meant by "the right to get married".
These rights are widely and internationally recognized.
A citizen has the right to join in mariage with another citizen to get the rights that a marriage license gives them.
Or do we disagree about there being anything like a marriage?

Edit:
The constitution does not only protect constitutional rights.
If I'm not mistaken it is an explicit Constitutional Right that every individual should have the same legal rights.

I don't know anyone who isn't a history professor that uses BCE/CE. Most interestingly because of the insane argument used for it. The years coincide directly with AD/BC so they are saying that the year Jesus is believed to have been born we magically entered a "civilized" era? Historically speaking nothing of significance happened in that year other than the believed birth of Jesus.

Actually it's "Common Era" and "Before Common Era" -- but I agree with you...the "Common Era" just 'happens' to coincide with Jesus' birth. It's just a 'sanitizing' measure for a multicultural world.

I don't know anyone who isn't a history professor that uses BCE/CE. Most interestingly because of the insane argument used for it. The years coincide directly with AD/BC so they are saying that the year Jesus is believed to have been born we magically entered a "civilized" era? Historically speaking nothing of significance happened in that year other than the believed birth of Jesus.

From what I here it's commonly taught in Judaic schools. I understand your point and once accidently offended a Jewish person by asking "Why change the terminology if you are still going to follow the Christian timeline of when Jesus was supposedly born?" I was much younger then! Why the original reasoning given to me is still weak, I do think it makes sense in a connected world where the English and many US-centric patterns are followed.

The majority of the world is not Christian, so BC/AD would not make much sense, but Before Current Era/Current Era would make sense for those with basic English skills, and Christians and still call it Before Christ's Era/Christ's Era if they want. I guess it's more of a compromise since the start date could be viewed arbitrary, but the naming of BC/AD is very Christian-centric.

Perhaps we need to start a whole new system. How about we take the official Unix Time that was started 12:00:01 januiary 1st, 1970. This is the age of technology, after all. That would make it the year 0038UT

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

I'm AC/DC generally - actually no, that' a lie. In truth that would misrepresent me more than the fact that I only ever use BC/AD does.

At the same time we need to realize that it took well over 100 years to overturn the state anti-miscegenation laws and since most of the anti-same-sex marriage laws have recently been passed history should point out that it'll probably be another 80+ years before it gets overturned (if ever) and, another issue, those laws were just that - laws - the recent push for the same-sex marriage bans rest on amending the state constitutions meaning that no judge can say it's against the state constitution if the constitution has been amended as such (and since the US Constitution has nothing to say on the subject it'll be a while before the Supreme Court bothers themselves with it).

You're making things up to support your dislike of gays. Just admit you don't like gay people and don't hide behind specious arguments.

It has nothing to do with likes or dislikes. I happen to care a great deal about everyone. And yes, what we see taking place in modern times has happened before. Numerous times. It's a cycle that happens like it or not when a society becomes too degraded and self-destructs.

Look around, we live in a society addicted to porn, drugs, "reality" shows that showcase the lower realms of mankind to the point that it's become normal to cheat, lie and steal. What is popular today? Songs about rape, drug use, criminality and such. Mental drugs are being pumped into society, drugs that are the cause of our moral blindness. We have politicians themselves engaging in such activities.

By design, the body was intend to pro-create. That is it's intend purpose. Anything else is a perversion. If you want to destroy something, what do you do? You pervert it.

Make no mistake about it, this society is on a self-destruct vector. But only because it has lost it's intended purpose and goal. The questions is, what are you doing about it? Go into agreement with that which shoves it down even further?

As a stock holder I believe this is the wrong move at the wrong time by the wrong company. Apple has nothing to win on this one and only things to lose. I am very displeased with Apple's management for taking this type of stand for either side in this hotly contested personal issue. This is a people decision not a company one. It may play well with the "Hollywood Crowd" but not with most shareholders. As for it being courageous, sorry, I find nothing courageous about it at all. I find it very ill advised.

Actually it's "Common Era" and "Before Common Era" -- but I agree with you...the "Common Era" just 'happens' to coincide with Jesus' birth. It's just a 'sanitizing' measure for a multicultural world.

Man, the books I read must have sucked because they, no lie, said "civilized era". We can't go to UNIX time tho - then the whole Windows 2000 bug never would have happened Wait, you meant the whole world didn't stop when the clock struck midnight in NYC? Oh, well, damn

EDIT: I'd bet that most people in America don't have a clue what AD means anyway BC is much easier but AD, man, stupid Latin always messing things up!

Even though it is called FAITH for a reason, they KNOW these things to be TRUE with absolute certainty.

Going off-topic with that thought:

Christians believe that God is real, and we are unable to provide a scientific proof for his existence. We believe that there is plenty of evidence, and it is on that evidence that we base our faith.

However, macro-evolution is likewise unprovable (there is no way to prove that one species evolved into another species), and yet it is often claimed as Truth. It is actually a collection of evidences that still require a leap of faith -- that Time + Matter + Chance produced your brain.

Let's say that God doesn't exist. We are merely the product of Time + Matter + Chance.

If that's the case, then all love, beauty, awe and wonder, deep thoughts, righteousness and indignation -- in short, all things that make us truly human -- are nothing more than electro-chemical responses in our bodies that we perceive as love, beauty, awe, etc. Any feelings of love from your spouse are just brain waves and chemicals and juices -- no more no less.

[And if that's the case, this whole discussion on this Apple forum is ridiculous -- a bunch of ape-creatures getting all uptight over electro-chemical impulses...]

But we know that to not be the case, deep down in our hearts.

If we really were atheistically evolved beings, we would just be purely pragmatic -- eat when we're hungry, find shelter when we're cold, etc. Just like the animals. We wouldn't be capable of recognizing beauty and feeling love.

The spirit within you testifies that you are more than just 'natural'.

No no - I really do believe what you say in your first two paragraphs to be true. I also truly believe your parenthesized thought to be true. Where I guess we really differ is that the knowledge of that does not alter my perception of the experience, nor make it in any sense invalid. I also believe that LOVE is biological function of survival. Nothing more. I have kids and they are such a pain that from a survival point of view it would take something truly powerful for me to stick around and help them to their feet. Hence love. Cynical? Not really, my love for life and the people around me is not diminished. My compassion for people around the world less fortunate than me no less. Perhaps the love of god is also a survival thing. A need for a kind of euphoria to see you through the hardships. A way to rationalize all the crap - you know - no matter how bad it gets its god's will so its ok, kind of thing. A bit like the pull of the euphoric feeling of the high for the addict

Man, the books I read must have sucked because they, no lie, said "civilized era". We can't go to UNIX time tho - then the whole Windows 2000 bug never would have happened Wait, you meant the whole world didn't stop when the clock struck midnight in NYC? Oh, well, damn

EDIT: I'd bet that most people in America don't have a clue what AD means anyway BC is much easier but AD, man, stupid Latin always messing things up!

Actually, you may be right, too:

According to the ALMIGHTY WIKI:

Quote:

Anno Domini is sometimes referred to as the Common Era, Christian Era or Current Era (abbreviated as C.E. or CE).

After a lot of research and an agonizingly long wait for the aluminum MacBooks, I was planning to go to the Apple Store tomorrow to purchase a new 2.4Ghz MacBook. Then I saw this news.

If Jobs had given $100,000 of his own money to oppose California Proposition 8, it would have been different. If Apple employees want to give their own money, that is their business. But the definition of marriage is a deeply-held, moral and ethical position. And for a company such as Apple, which is known for the fanatical loyalty of its customer base, to take one side of such a critical issue is to suggest that those who support Apple should support that view also.

CEO's should use their own resources in support of a cause, instead of taking the revenue that comes from a company's customer base and using it in controversial ways that many of their customers cannot support.

So, as much as I was looking forward to it, my purchase of a MacBook is off--and no iPod Touch either.

Perhaps we need to start a whole new system. How about we take the official Unix Time that was started 12:00:01 januiary 1st, 1970. This is the age of technology, after all. That would make it the year 0038UT

I like it! I'll be really young and go back to high school! But yeah, much as I use BC/AD, and much as political correctness can be frustrating, when you look at it closer change almost always makes sense. Using BC/AD is arrogant in today's world.

Let's say that God doesn't exist. We are merely the product of Time + Matter + Chance.

If that's the case, then all love, beauty, awe and wonder, deep thoughts, righteousness and indignation -- in short, all things that make us truly human -- are nothing more than electro-chemical responses in our bodies that we perceive as love, beauty, awe, etc. Any feelings of love from your spouse are just brain waves and chemicals and juices -- no more no less.

[And if that's the case, this whole discussion on this Apple forum is ridiculous -- a bunch of ape-creatures getting all uptight over electro-chemical impulses...]

But we know that to not be the case, deep down in our hearts.

If we really were atheistically evolved beings, we would just be purely pragmatic -- eat when we're hungry, find shelter when we're cold, etc. Just like the animals. We wouldn't be capable of recognizing beauty and feeling love.

The spirit within you testifies that you are more than just 'natural'.

I like it! I'll be really young and go back to high school! But yeah, much as I use BC/AD, and much as political correctness can be frustrating, when you look at it closer change almost always makes sense. Using BC/AD is arrogant in today's world.

Possibly but as it's been pointed out that is the absolute only event (Jesus' birth) that happened of historical significance in the time frame so why not call a spade a spade and leave it BC/AD? Calling it BCE/CE is absolutely ridiculous and screams of revisionist history.

By design, the body was intend to pro-create. That is it's intend purpose. Anything else is a perversion. If you want to destroy something, what do you do? You pervert it.

Holy crap - I would hate to go to a party with you. What a depressoid. Why do you say anything else is a perversion. I would use the word 'bonus', or 'enhancement'. Why are you destroying it? Why can't you enjoy it? Maybe if you tried you'd discover the joys. Sex is wicked - in the best sense of the word - you know, where there's a degree of the other sense of the word as well. ;-)

The mere fact that you (or anyone) could claim to know what your God thinks would be contrary to your Christian teachings.

Not at all. We are told to seek the mind of God. The whole bible is God revealing himself to us, so that we know him and know what he thinks and wants, what he loves and hates.

Romans 12:2: "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will ishis good, pleasing and perfect will."

I don't know anyone who isn't a history professor that uses BCE/CE. Most interestingly because of the insane argument used for it. The years coincide directly with AD/BC so they are saying that the year Jesus is believed to have been born we magically entered a "civilized" era? Historically speaking nothing of significance happened in that year other than the believed birth of Jesus.

I thought BCE meant Before Common Era, and CE meant Common Era, neither of which have anything to do with being "civilized." In function BCE/CE are merely euphemisms for BC/AD.

So the only reason you're posting here on this forum is that your electro-chemical impulses -- honed by millions of years of Time + Matter + Chance that produced your brain -- have somehow spurred you to get uptight? Really that means that all of our thoughts -- yours and mine -- are all just a product of a big accidental chain-reaction.

Christians believe that God is real, and we are unable to provide a scientific proof for his existence. We believe that there is plenty of evidence, and it is on that evidence that we base our faith.

However, macro-evolution is likewise unprovable (there is no way to prove that one species evolved into another species), and yet it is often claimed as Truth. It is actually a collection of evidences that still require a leap of faith -- that Time + Matter + Chance produced your brain.

If it was all that convincing it wouldn't still be called Evolutionary Theory. Problem is it doesn't pass the 7 step Scientific Method for establishing a hypothesis as a fact.

I can't remember who said it first but even if God didn't exist it would be necessary for man to create one to explain all which he does not know and is inexplicable. Like how people recover from incurable diseases (amongst other things)

Holy crap - I would hate to go to a party with you. What a depressoid. Why do you say anything else is a perversion. I would use the word 'bonus', or 'enhancement'. Why are you destroying it? Why can't you enjoy it? Maybe if you tried you'd discover the joys. Sex is wicked - in the best sense of the word - you know, where there's a degree of the other sense of the word as well. ;-)

Because if you know God, then it's tough to enjoy things that he doesn't approve of. Sex before marriage is in the same category as homosexual sex. God made sex to be for one male/female couple, never to be unfaithful and never to divorce. Anything other than that, and you're short-changing yourself. And her.

If you don't know God, then I can understand why you feel you can do whatever pleases you.

It has nothing to do with likes or dislikes. I happen to care a great deal about everyone. And yes, what we see taking place in modern times has happened before. Numerous times. It's a cycle that happens like it or not when a society becomes too degraded and self-destructs.

Look around, we live in a society addicted to porn, drugs, "reality" shows that showcase the lower realms of mankind to the point that it's become normal to cheat, lie and steal. What is popular today? Songs about rape, drug use, criminality and such. Mental drugs are being pumped into society, drugs that are the cause of our moral blindness. We have politicians themselves engaging in such activities.

By design, the body was intend to pro-create. That is it's intend purpose. Anything else is a perversion. If you want to destroy something, what do you do? You pervert it.

Make no mistake about it, this society is on a self-destruct vector. But only because it has lost it's intended purpose and goal. The questions is, what are you doing about it? Go into agreement with that which shoves it down even further?

Societies rise and fall, and in our case we can no longer sustain the unlimited spending thanks to our "unlimited" wars. The US is now, what... 11 trillion dollars in debt, and most of this debt is owed to China. The country is in decline because we no longer reward hard work, we reward thieves, liars and laziness. But if you view things in another way, civilization and society are illusions anyway. All of these artificial constructs come from our minds, and they are manifested in our buildings, societies and governments.

With regard to "By design, the body was intend to pro-create"... true. As a matter of fact, it is the purpose for our existence. Everything that has sprouted off from our lives (culture, civilization, language, math, religion, etc.) is a byproduct of our longer lives and increased brainpower, which as I understand it has come about due to greater access to food, high-quality protein and consistent crops. This is what evolution has wrought.

The majority of the world is not Christian, so BC/AD would not make much sense,

But the majority of the world has adopted the use of a Christian adapted calendar: the Gregorian Calendar. Granted, that it has done so to simplify business transactions rather than to endorse Christianity, which makes its adoption an use mostly a non issue.

Because if you know God, then it's tough to enjoy things that he doesn't approve of. Sex before marriage is in the same category as homosexual sex. God made sex to be for one male/female couple, never to be unfaithful and never to divorce. Anything other than that, and you're short-changing yourself. And her.

If you don't know God, then I can understand why you feel you can do whatever pleases you.

God made me hate religious people, I wonder what his purpose was. 320 comments on this thread, I guess it hit a nerve...

Gay marriage has been legal in Canada since 2005. It is indeed a matter of equality and civil rights.

I approve and praise Apple and Google for fighting this outrageous campaign by fanatic religious groups to deny the civil rights of others, the rights of people who do not belong to and do not recognize themselves as members of these churches and groups, including the Catholic Church.

This attempt to deny the rights of others is no different than denying the rights of someone by reason of their race, colour, or sex. Ask a woman, a Jew or a Black person if their rights should be denied or equal to every other American.

In Canada, with a population of over 33 million, I was surprised to learn that the number of gay marriages is between 6,500 and 8,000 per year. Gay and lesbian couples don't marry for the same reasons as straight heterosexual couples: Marriage is all about being financially responsible for your spouse and the children of your spouse, even if you are not the biologic parent of the children.

A divorce is a financial catastrophy for everyone, gay or straight, as spouses must sell their home and share their pensions, retirement allocations and life savings.

In Canada, fewer and fewer people are willing to commit to one another to that extent, especially in the absence of children. I don't believe that more than 30% of the couples choose marriage, even if they have children.

Marriage is all about financial responsability and equal rights. Marriage is not about sex or religion, just the financial burden of breakup.

Everyone can have sex without the commitment of marriage. If you choose to marry, you become financially responsible for your spouse and the children of your spouse.

Not at all. We are told to seek the mind of God. The whole bible is God revealing himself to us, so that we know him and know what he thinks and wants, what he loves and hates.

Romans 12:2: "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will ishis good, pleasing and perfect will."

Yes, transformation is what Jesus was about, and he went out of his way to serve, eat with, walk with people considered outsiders in his day. The Bible is stories of people trying to perceive God, includes many contradictions. The bottom line I find is respect and justice and love for every person. Every person is beloved. Prop. 8 seeks to deny some people legal rights. Prop. 8 is funded by religious people seeking to tell the state how to define rights. Religions can define marriage in their traditions, and they do, and many traditions contradict one another. Some say men rule over women. Some say you can't marry outside the religion. Some religions believe in polygamy. State law is different. State law is about equalty for everyone, it is about equal access to privileges of marriage. One more comment, please have the respect for LGBT persons to ask them what they think and experience on this issue. I read this site often. I applaud Apple for contributing to defeat Prop. 8, just as I would applaud any company for contributing to stop discrimination against people of color and women.

I oppose Prop 8; I know hundreds of people who oppose Prop 8; and I will go on record to state this:

Each of your six points is patently false.
Every. Single. One.

Not even one of them is remotely true. But stating them with authority makes you feel important and knowledgeable, doesn't it? I don't know one person who supports Prop 8 who's in favor of any of your points. Not one person!

Unfortunately, you're gullible, and you've been duped by the lies that proponents of Prop 8 have spread. They're playing "dirty," and in that regard, they're seeing success. Disagreeing is one thing. But lying is another. No one who opposes Prop 8 has needed to lie. So, why have supporters of Prop 8 had to do so? The fact that Prop 8 supporters have had to resort to lying says a lot about you. I challenge you to present a shred of non-partisan documentation that backs up your claims. And I challenge you to find one opponent of Prop 8 to corroborate your absurd claims. Just one. (Good luck with that.)

Meanwhile, I leave you with a question:

If Prop 8 passes, you'll no doubt claim that "God's will was done." With that in mind, if Prop 8 is defeated, will you admit that "God's will was done"? Or is "God's will" only done when he appears to agree with you?

First, I don't speak for God and am quite frustrated with the direction of this discussion. I feel that this is more of a social issue than a religious issue. I am very interested to hear your point of view and will be nothing but respecting and tolerant. Tolerance is about respecting differences without necessarily being uniform.

As to your question, we are seeing that the same groups fighting in opposition of Prop 8 in California are the same groups that are fighting for same-sex marriage to be added to elementary curriculum.

From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children's book...'King and King'." [p 9]

"This court has astutely recognized that a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would fatally compromise the ability of a school to provide a meaningful education, a conclusion that holds true regardless of the age of the child or the nature of the belief." [p 18]

"First, a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would subject a school to a staggering administrative burden...Second, in contravention of the axiom that 'the classroom is peculiarly the 'marketplace of ideas' [citations], a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would chill discussion in the classroom...Third, the coming and goings of those children who have been opted out of lessons would be highly disruptive to the learning environment. Moreover, such comings and goings would fatally undermine the lessons that schools teach
the other students." [pp 22-23]

(Note: The Northern California Chapter of the ACLU has also formed a Proposition 8 opposition committee: No on Prop 8, Campaign for Marriage Equality, a project of the ACLU of Northern California (ID# 1308178). This committee has collected $1.6 million in contributions (as of 10/8/08), including more than $70,000 from the ACLU of northern California, as well
as $8,000 from the ACLU Foundation. This committee has contributed $1,250,000 to No on 8, Equality for All (ID# 1259396), the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee.)